THE GLOBAL DEMAND FOR OIL AND GAS IS INCREASING. SOME BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD THEREFORE ENCOURAGE THE EXPLOITATION OF REMOTE AREAS. DO THE ADVANTAGES OF THIS OUTWEIGH THE DISADVANTAGES?
Is the mindset of taking for granted all provided by the Earth still considered reasonable for people of 21 century? With growing consumerism, including that of fossil fuels, some people argue that excavation of oil and gas should be permitted in some far-away territories. Notwithstanding the existence of quite logical supporting arguments to the mentioned statement, I personally opine that its drawbacks are more significant.
The benefit of increasing the extraction of fossil fuels in less populated regions is somewhat related to supporting the social standard of living. First of all, a whole lot of countries, especially developing ones, rely heavily on the upstream and downstream of oil and gas, since these activities are as large as life for them because from the extraction, production, and further sale of O&G resources account for the largest inflow of money in their economies. By increased exploitation of remote areas, the government could not only increase the taxes creating the budget’s surplus but also employ more people decreasing the unemployment rates thus contributing to the prosperity of the country and its residents.
Nevertheless, the aforementioned strength is minored in comparison with the considerable weaknesses which should be taken into account. One reason disadvantage is that nature is put in jeopardy when exploring the fields. As for details, it is well-known fact that the more gas and oil are exploited, the more people burn them in a normal course of life, while fossil fuels are among the prime accelerator of greenhouse gases. Moreover, while transportation of oil to fuel stations and subsequent usage of gasoline and diesel by residents, the carbon footprint is extended to an enormous amount deepening such environmental issues as air pollution, global warming, increased frequency of eco-catastrophes, and others.
In addition to this, in a long run, bearing in mind that the energy from oil and gas is non-renewable, it is a short-term policy. Put in other words, if the government does not take the responsibility to reduce the level of fossil fuel production, or at least weaken the demand for the oil and gas by inciting the alternative energy development, we would find ourselves with nothing left sooner than it was assumed. Therefore, increased exploration activity could lead to the devastating consequences: useless investments in expensive drills, needless factories, and other constructions for the oil and gas production when no fossil fuel resources left, increased unemployment, and impoverished countries. In this regard solar, wind and river power are the key to the prosperous development of nations.
In conclusion, it can be assumed that oil and gas production expansion is a non-resistance path that will positively influence the living standards in the short-term, whereas in order to support the prosperity in long run, we do not have to waste the time, but invest in alternative energy development.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 109, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'century' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'centuries'.
Suggestion: centuries
... considered reasonable for people of 21 century? With growing consumerism, including th...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 164, Rule ID: WHOLE_LOT[1]
Message: Use simply 'lot'.
Suggestion: lot
...ial standard of living. First of all, a whole lot of countries, especially developing one...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, moreover, nevertheless, so, still, therefore, thus, well, whereas, while, as for, at least, in addition, in conclusion, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 10.4138276553 182% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 41.998997996 150% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 8.3376753507 264% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2516.0 1615.20841683 156% => OK
No of words: 467.0 315.596192385 148% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38758029979 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64867537961 4.20363070211 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22277276941 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 272.0 176.041082164 155% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.58244111349 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 781.2 506.74238477 154% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 0.809619238477 741% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 31.0 20.2975951904 153% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 80.4828760255 49.4020404114 163% => OK
Chars per sentence: 167.733333333 106.682146367 157% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.1333333333 20.7667163134 150% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.3333333333 7.06120827912 161% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.251211926597 0.244688304435 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0704849110386 0.084324248473 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0366173475504 0.0667982634062 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12429942019 0.151304729494 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0285619185877 0.056905535591 50% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.5 13.0946893788 149% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.55 50.2224549098 63% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 11.3001002004 147% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.57 12.4159519038 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.21 8.58950901804 119% => OK
difficult_words: 149.0 78.4519038076 190% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 10.1190380762 142% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.